According to a report yesterday, Boko Haram is suspected to be behind yet another attack in Nigeria, as two bombings at a market have left 50 people dead and 70 injured.

Notably, Hillary Clinton’s State Department refused to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist group despite the fact “counterterrorism officials in the State Department, Justice Department and FBI all favored officially designating the group as an ‘official terrorist organization.‘” The grouppledged its allegiance to Islamic State earlier this year.

Recently, in a letter to the FBI, Sen. Chuck Grassley raised significant questions about an operative of Islamic State, Ali Awni al Harzi, who ” planned and perpetrated the attack against the Consulate of the United States in Benghazi.” After being obtained in Turkey and sent back to Tunisia, Harzi was interviewed by the FBI and subsequently released by a Tunisian judge. Shockingly, when asked if she found the release of Harzi “distressing,” during a 2013testimony to Congress on Benghazi, Clinton said she did not.

According to a terrorism expert, Harzi, who was killed in a drone strike last month, was said to be “a jack-of-all-trades,” for Islamic State, as well as “extremely dangerous for the U.S. and a versatile asset for ISIL.” These latest developments are another reminder of Hillary Clinton’s weak record on fighting terrorism.

The draft nuclear agreement between Iran and the United Kingdom, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States, was announced today after many missed deadlines.

While Hillary Clinton has endorsed today’s deal, her official comments on the nascent deal lacked substance. However, in previous statements Clinton offered more explicit expectations for any deal with Iran.

Under today’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran is allowed uranium enrichment up to 3.67% for 15 years. Clinton, however, called for “so little enrichment or no enrichment … for a long period of time” because she believed “any enrichment will trigger an arms race in the Middle East.” Notably, Saudi Arabia and other Arab stateshave already said they will “match” Iran’s enrichment capabilities.

Another area of contention for Clinton is Iran’s breakout time. Clinton has called for a breakout time of over a year, but the “limits imposed by today’s agreement impose abreakout time of only one year.”

Evoking bipartisan concern in the United States is the ”contentious” arms embargo. According to The New York Times, restrictions on missiles would end in eight years and a “similar ban on the purchase and sale of conventional weapons would be removed in five years,” but, especially concerning, is that both could be lifted earlier. Democrats are said to be “worrying” over the arms embargo, and several in the Senate indicated they could withhold their support of a deal that lifted the embargo. Clinton has so far been silent on how the US should approach the arms embargo in the nuclear agreement.

Finally, Clinton called for a deal that “imposes an intrusive inspection program with no sites off limits.” Although Clintonclaimed that today’s deal included “the access for inspections and the transparency that was absolutely necessary,” The Wall Street Journal reports it is “unlikely” that the IAEA will “have access anytime and anywhere to Iran’s nuclear sites.” In addition, a New York Times
report notes it is also “unclear whether the inspectors would be able to interview the scientists and engineers” who were key to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards’ “effort … to design a weapon that Iran could manufacture in short order.”

But unfortunately for Clinton, despite whatever rhetoric she ultimately comes up with to justify her support for the agreement, her previous qualifications for an agreement with Iran were not fully met with today’s deal. Indeed, Clinton will “own the agreement” that is being frowned upon by many in her own party, as Clinton is said to have “worked in harmony” on Iran with Obama during her tenure as Secretary of State.

Hillary Clinton and her campaign made a special point to attack startups like Uber and Airbnb over the weekend in a preview of Clinton’s sure-to-be stale economic speech this morning. Perhaps sensing some pushback from “everyday Americans” that use these services, the Clinton campaign tried to walk back her criticism in Playbook:

–CLARIFICATION from yesterday’s Playbook: Uber is an example of Clinton’s views on the sharing economy. Don’t look for her to mention the firm by name.

So if Clinton herself isn’t going to go after Uber, why were her campaign aides doing so with every outlet willing to write about her speech? See below:

CNN:

Clinton, aides said, will attack the “sharing economy” — represented by companies like the ride-sharing appUber — which create jobs but don’t offer benefits and protections.

Washington Post:

In her speech, aides said Clinton will argue that tectonic forces in the global economy are conspiring against middle-class families — such as automation and technology, which are eliminating middle-skill jobs that once provided solid incomes, as well as the new “sharing economy,” epitomized by Uber, which has created efficiency but also jobs lacking benefits and protections. But she will say that the government should enact policies to shape how these forces affect Americans.

Politico:

Clinton’s aide said she will discuss some of the structural forces conspiring against sustainable wage growth, such as globalization, automation, and even consumer-friendly “sharing economy” firms like Uber and Airbnb that are creating new relationships between management and labor (and which now employ many Obama administration alumni). But she will argue that policy choices have contributed to the problem, and that she can fix it.

Huffington Post:

Clinton’s speech will take on the shortcomings of automation and the sharing economy (think: Uber, Airbnb), making the case that these trends, while valuable, need to come with better policies for workers.

Good try Team Clinton, but it’s a lot harder to cozy up to a wildly popular service after you publicly trash it.

Yet again, Hillary Clinton’s campaign dominated the Sunday Shows. And yet again, not in a good way. Reactions to Clinton’s first national television interview since announcing her campaign were abundant, as it did not go as well as Team Clinton had hoped. Check out a rundown of critical reviews below.

Vox’s Jonathan Allen said Clinton’s interview was actually “terrible” and she continued to be extremely evasive on “questions of substance.”

On CNN’s “State of the Union,” John King debunks Clinton’s answer about never having a subpoena for her emails as “just simply not true.”

Also on CNN, Brianna Keilar, who interviewed Clinton, said she was “surprised” that Clinton did not show more contrition about all the scandals plaguing her campaign. Keilar then went on to also say that Clinton’s answers about her emails did not pass fact checks.

And on ABC’s “This Week,” Cokie Roberts summed up Clinton’s performance by saying Clinton “is not on her game in these interviews.”

Yesterday, the American Federation of Teachers endorsedHillary Clinton in the Democratic primary. The endorsement came as no surprise to anyone, despite AFT’s attempts to appear fair in its endorsement process by meeting with several Democrat candidates, including Clinton her challengers – Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley.

In addition to AFT endorsing Hillary Clinton in 2008, the Clintons have been close to AFT and its president, Randi Weingarten, for years. AFT has donated $1.1 million to the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative since 2011. Weingarten herself sits on the board of the Pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA, and worked closely with Hillary Clinton while she served as Senator from New York. Weingarten also praised Bill Clinton as the “education President of the last century.”

Democrats in key Senate states like Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Illinois did a great job of attacking one another this week.

In Illinois, the DSCC thought it would be a great idea to endorse Rep. Tammy Duckworth for Senate before even interviewing other credible candidates, like Andrea Zopp, the former president and CEO of the Chicago Urban League. Zopp took offense to the slight:

In a statement, Zopp said she was “saddened and shocked that the DSCC would issue an endorsement without even interviewing me” and accused the group of displaying “total insensitivity to Chicago, African-American women and the democratic process.”

Similarly in Ohio, where Cincinnati Councilman P.G. Sittenfeld is taking on Ted Strickland, formerly of the Center for American Progress, the Democratic Party’s chairman, David Pepper, said Sittenfeld is “making a bad decision.”

[I]n an interview with the Business Courier’s editorial board on Monday, Pepper, who’s been on the job for about six months, discussed the Senate primary extensively in response to questions, including his belief that Sittenfeld is making a mistake by staying in the race.

In Pennsylvania, powerful Philadelphia Democrat Rep. Bob Brady is continuing his campaign against Joe Sestak, who made news this week for running over several children at a Fourth of July parade in Delaware County.

The only problem is, many Democratic leaders, including Brady, are looking for something else. You might call it, ‘Anybody But Sestak.’

Party leaders have been desperately seeking someone to challenge Sestak in the primary.

Finally, in Florida, following Rep. Alan Grayson’s announcement that he will jump in the Democrat Senate primary in Florida, the DSCC completely ignored Grayson’s entry, instead focusing on their preferred candidate, Patrick Murphy. NBC’s Chuck Todd notes:

Make no mistake: Grayson’s entry is the second setback for Senate Democrats, after not getting Kay Hagan to run again in NC SEN. At the very least, Murphy and national Democrats are going to have to spend money on taking down Grayson …

In his defense, Grayson notes: “In the last cycle the DSCC lost every single open seat in the entire country except for one.”

Tough but fair.

Today, Barack Obama’s nominee to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said “Russia presents the greatest threat to our national security” and said Russia’s behavior is “nothing short of alarming.” 

This statement is astounding, especially since President Obama’s 2012 campaign attacked Mitt Romney for saying Russia was our main geopolitical foe, including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who called Russia an ally:

In a recent interview with CNN, Hillary Clinton stated that “everything I did was permitted” regarding her handling of her State Department emails. Washington Post Fact Checkers dug into this claim and here is what they found:

Regulations Were Put In Place While She Was Secretary of State

In 2009, just eight months after Clinton became secretary of state, the U.S. Code of federal regulations on handling electronic records was updated: “Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record-keeping system.”

Clinton’s system though did not allow for her emails to be easily preserved because “her practice made it difficult to locate records in response to specific requests, because Clinton’s e-mail would be in another official’s inbox — but would not exist in the federal system as part of Clinton’s outbox.”

She Even Told Her Staff To Not Use Private Emails

On top of that, when Clinton was secretary, a cable went out under her signature warning employees to “avoid conducting official Department business from your personal e-mail accounts.”

Clinton Ignored Directives from The Foreign Service Manual

The Foreign Affairs Manual made it clear that before a senior official (such as a Senate-confirmed presidential appointee) departs government service, he or she must prepare an inventory of personal papers that are proposed for removal. The manual states that “correspondence or e-mail received or sent in an employee’s capacity as a Department official is not personal.”

It is now apparent that Secretary Clinton blatantly disregarded these directives. Instead she chose to keep her emails for nearly two years before turning them over to the State Department.

Final Conclusion: Three Pinocchios

In reality, Clinton’s decision to use a private e-mail system for official business was highly unusual and flouted State Department procedures, even if not expressly prohibited by law at the time. Moreover, while she claims “everything I did was permitted,” she appears to have not complied with the requirement to turn over her business-related e-mails before she left government service. That’s a major misstep that she has not acknowledged.

Originally posted by only-and-forever-yours

Democrats have to win big in 2016 to disassemble the GOP’s historic House majority, but they’re off to a bad start. In must-win districts, Democrats are seeing their hopes severely threatened by contentious primaries throughout the country:

FL-18: Democrats’ preferred choice to run in the open swing seat has gone disastrously wrong. Three candidates are now vying for the coveted seat.

IA-01: Following Bruce Braley’s disastrous 2014 Senate bid, Democrats lost his vacant, Democratic-leaning seat. Now, in their battle to reclaim a seat they had held for nearly a decade, they are coping with a high-stakes primary with three Democratic contenders in an expensive top 2016 state.

Read more at America Rising.

As House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi gears up for her high-end Chicago fundraiser in June, an important question lingers in the suburbs north of Chicago – will Pelosi invite former 10th district Congressman Brad Schneider?

In March, Highland Park Mayor Nancy Rotering threw a wrench into Washington Democrats’ plans when she announced her candidacy, triggering a potentially problematic primary challenge to Schneider.

What will Pelosi and the Democrats do? Will they invite both prospective nominees to the fundraiser or will they alienate a Democratic candidate to anoint their preferred nominee?

Read more at America Rising.